Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Feb 26, 2012 1:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD...historical place & future directions

Not directly related to your post - but many people are saying how crucial the live experience was to getting into the Dead, hence how important the post-Dead jam bands are in creating new fans.

As someone who was hooked entirely by recordings, I realize I may be a freak, but I do have a different perspective.
So I wonder really, how many younger people are turned on to the Dead by first seeing Phish or Furthur or whoever, versus those who discover the Dead via recordings?

As a comparison, take Cream! I bet many people who saw them would say, "you couldn't understand how powerful it was without actually seeing them, the tapes just aren't the same!" Plenty of testimony to that effect. But YOU didn't have to see them to get hooked! - nor did most people.
Of course you can bring up the importance of social context - it was easy for you to discover Cream because you were around other people who were fans, etc - the most common way of discovering music, for sure.
(But there's all kinds of ways. You know how I got into Cream? Because the Wheels of Fire album had that bright silver cover. Whenever I looked at someone's record collection, I noticed this bright shiny double-album with the weird cover. Knew nothing about Cream except that Clapton was in it, and he had a reputation as being some great guitarist, so I became curious. As it happened, I listened not to that album first, but Fresh Cream - probably because I found it on tape for like $2 or something - and within about 2 or 3 songs, was blown away.)

Anyway - another point people make is that as the generation who experienced the Dead gets older, the passion for the Dead will diminish.
But I think there is an equal & opposite reaction as well - even more widespread than love for the band is Dislike of them & their whole scene. As I mentioned in the last thread, anti-Dead stereotypes are still alive & well & very prevalent in "mainstream" culture. And as time passes & the Dead become more 'historical,' I think this too will diminish, and more people in the future may be able to hear them with open minds.
Then again, maybe not!
Who knows what sea-changes might come in music that might make all rock bands sound as much like relics as the big-bands of the 40s...

This post was modified by light into ashes on 2012-02-26 21:07:13

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Feb 26, 2012 9:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD...historical place & future directions

"As someone who was hooked entirely by recordings, I realize I may be a freak"

You are not alone.

Though I obviously am not "hooked" to the extent that you are, nor do I possess your analytical abilities; I was drawn to the music of "the oldest juveniles in the state of California" when I purchased the monaural version of their first album, from a cut-out bin, in 1968. I listened exclusively to "official releases"(and didn't seek out all of them until after the release of WALSTIB) until 2002 when I saw The Other Ones. It was only then that I discovered the joy, and madness, of live concert recording, LMA, Deadhook and an amazing group of characters who have raised my GD knowledge exponentially.

As far as the future of GD music, I know I passed my love of the music along to my children(one likes GD better than the other). They, in turn, are passing this love of music to my grandchildren. And with Rhino at the helm, Grateful Dead music will be relentlessly marketed(though not maybe the particular bits and pieces we'd like to see). As long as there are adventurous listeners willing to try something "new"(at least to their ears), Rhino should be able to cultivate new fans for quite a while.



This post was modified by user unknown on 2012-02-27 05:00:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 26, 2012 1:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: LiA was MADE without Live DEAD...

It was, of course, you I was thinking of; and, not just to make you feel better, but look at how in essence, when you come down to it, I am MUCH like you: I saw the band, BUT now feel I "missed" it, since I didn't see 68!? Pathetic, eh?

And, I agree with the addt'l comments above, about how we are music lovers, in general, and certainly "seeing them live" matters, BUT as has been said so often (and I just said again--I only HEARD recordings of 68), the simple truth is, even with all the negative stereo types, it seems to me that DEAD HEADS are STILL being "made".

LiA, you are exhibit one!

And, I know that fanatics are still being made for other bands, but just don't think it's at the same rate/intensity.

Do agree, Dham, that we don't know what this "means" statistically, ie, what are the total numbers, will it mean profit for the sales dept, etc., etc.

But, that's really my main pt: some how, some way, folks that are largely similar to me (ie, YOU, LiA, and I hope you don't mind the comparison) can still be produced without having seen the band.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Feb 26, 2012 1:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: WTell was MADE without Live CREAM...

(Pardon the little edit!)

Given that I was hooked by a 1968 show, I am even more of a rarity...that must be vanishingly uncommon. I guess I am an exhibit for fanatical obsessives, though!

I am sure the Dead will have their place in music history - though it may be a small place. Given their type of music - full of long jams, based on improvisation - most Dead stuff can never really be 'popular' or 'mainstream' except for some of the easy-listening country-rock-type songs they did. (Dire Wolf will always trump Dark Star in popular taste.) But that has its place, too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Feb 27, 2012 12:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD...historical place & future directions

You just reminded me of the first time I saw Fleetwood Mac. Don't laugh. The early incarnation of Buckingham/Nicks. I had the record, but the live show was totally another animal. I never listened to them the same way (or loudness) again.

To me, live was everything. And I have the ears to prove it. :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Feb 26, 2012 3:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD...historical place & future directions

That first imprint is not going away. It will be in the mix as GD are looked at thru time. Unless some great revisionist idea comes along, they are already stuck with the package. It will be a hand me down or something found in its small niche of Americana music for future newcomers.

It's so silly thinking only those that were physically at shows can get it. However, it is a huge factor in general that does not apply with Pops or Miles or Cream. The GD have so many shows, so many thousands of hours of recordings, and a multigeneraltional culture and history created over decades. Outside of WT, has anyone listened to Cream more then 5K times? (Which is kind of entry level number for GD) Or how about Miles? Pops?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 26, 2012 4:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD...historical place & future directions

That's an excellent, simple metric: so many of us, and many of "our" converts, have done exactly this with the DEAD, and it is rare, so much more rare, for it to be true of folks for say, CREAM (I am working on it!), and your other examples.

I guess most of us have said something along these lines above, but I was expecting a Phish or Who or PFld fan to chime in with "I am EXACTLY the same way with...", and they haven't yet (duh, wrong Forum, but you know what I mean--someone to say "yeah, I have roughly the same level of interest in even ONE other band").

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Feb 26, 2012 6:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Well, only those who "saw the elephant" really "got" the Civil War. And of course there were as many "gets" as there were theaters, divisions, brigades, veterans ... there's a phrase, "the second Civil War," that refers to the way the generals (and veterans in general) argued about it in print for decades. The 19th c equivalent of a GD forum :-)

It's always true that nobody really "gets" a time but those who lived through it. Still, you get your CW obsessives of various stripes (from reenactors to buffs with a whole library full to just a couple books to those who will see a movie on it whenever it comes out, etc etc.) None of those "get" it, really, of course ... no one who saw it is alive ... but the ones with the library full do get SOMETHING important that comes at least a bit close.

That's what the Dead will be, of course. History. The CW came during the time of mass publication, so there were a gazillion books written by survivors -- the digital collection of its day, which offered an "entry" into it via memoirs/diaries/photographs on the battlefield. The GD came during a much more multi-media era, so the music CAN survive, and can (and will) encapsulate a historical era for many.

It won't be The Experience. But my experience wasn't your experience wasn't WT's wasn't Ringo's or Cliff's or thousands upon thousands of people not on this board. Everyone saw a different part of the elephant. Still, the very fact that we DO talk about "The Experience" (the elephant) will color the way the future perceives it ... and it'll be what folks try to "get" when they listen to the music.

Being part of this huge thing called The 60s, which absolutely cannot be "gotten" without listening to its music, will be a key reason the legacy will be kept alive. (Sorry Phish. Aside from the less-fascinating music, there's just not that historical peg to hang the hat on.) Future 60s historians and buffs of various stripes will undoubtedly encounter the Dead; they're hard to miss if you're interested in the counterculture. Kinda the way the 20th Maine is hard to miss if you're at all into the CW. It's hardly the whole shebang, but hard to miss if you pay any attention ... and then there's a whole fascinating "corpus," right?

So, it'll be a Venn diagram: when interest in 60s history overlaps with interest in music (without which it's hard to BE interested in the 60s, frankly), it will overlap with various bands (of course), one of the most fascinating of which, musically and culturally, and with a long continuation that went way past the 60s, will be the Dead.

A tiny slice? Sure, but also a big one. The Dead will be the 20th Maine of 60s history (which is inseparable from its music). Not bad when the elephant has long since ceased rampaging and trumpeting over the hills.



This post was modified by AltheaRose on 2012-02-27 02:54:14

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Feb 26, 2012 6:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

The cause is odious, but I think Longstreet gets the shaft: as he did in spades after the CW. Becoming a Republican after just through all the pepper in the pot.

I would argue that the Elephant was live. That was were the fundamental primal communication happened which can not be replicated anywhere (well maybe in a hologram, ect.), whatever ones personal trip while there. In any experience we have now, interacting with this wonderful scene that I agree has taken root and will continue, we will never see the Elephant again. I agree that as far as a rock bands influence beyond music GD is huge and it may not fade away too much at all.

Now I lay me down to sleep
In mud many fathoms deep
If I'm not here when you awake
Just hunt me up with a oyster rake

(month and year when Union soldiers sang this)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Feb 26, 2012 7:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Random guess for CW: Mud march, Jan '63

Random guess if it's a muddy GD: June '83

Maybe Longstreet was the Brent of the CW.

This post was modified by AltheaRose on 2012-02-27 03:40:10

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Feb 27, 2012 10:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Ha! I think he was the Brent of the CW.

Without the name of the army AR easily brushes aside the Mud March question. Mud March GD could be '89 Alpine too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Feb 27, 2012 8:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Garcia as a fat Bobbie Lee ? Bobby as a nonviolent Stonewall (that look in his eyes ).
This could really get ridiculous ( opps ! it has !).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 27, 2012 1:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Wait a minute...I get to play my "Ringo Card": HUH???!!!

You guys actually lost me, and it's military history time?

Okay, I am NOT a CW buff, having read fewer than 30 books on the topic, I'd guess, but still...never thought that would happen.

Don't get me wrong, I get the "got it...elephant...be there now..er, then..." biz, and can make assumptions about the rest, but just had to say, you might be taking a page out of my book on the cryptic writing approach, chapter 3, which so distresses RingLee-O.

;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Feb 27, 2012 6:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Sorry. Should have tossed in some dogs.

Now does this make more sense?

http://www.old-picture.com/civil-war/pictures/George-Armstrong-Custer.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Pig Street ! Date: Feb 27, 2012 9:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Here is proof

Attachment: tigerbolt-6bmmq84.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DeadRed1971 Date: Feb 27, 2012 9:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Fucking brilliant!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Feb 27, 2012 10:40am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Deadhead geeks meet Civil war geeks

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/

We are one big, happy, socially stunted family.

"Dude, the Battle of Shiloh they did in '73 was the best ever!"
"No way, the one in '82 blew that one out of the water"

This post was modified by SomeDarkHollow on 2012-02-27 18:40:25

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Feb 27, 2012 6:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

And look! Here's the shirt! (Couldn't find a Union one. The South seems to win in reenactor apparel.)


http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/product/18188485/view/1/type/png/width/378/height/378/civil-war-csa-virginia.png

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Feb 28, 2012 5:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

And here I was thinking that the Trekkies and us had cornered the market on geekdom.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DeadRed1971 Date: Feb 27, 2012 9:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Don't give Ken Burns any ideas. He's a Head too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Pig Street ! Date: Feb 27, 2012 10:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on the DEAD... and how it relates to the Civil War

Maybe Jer was influenced by him...Dunno

Attachment: jg_Giants.jpg